Phase tuning in Michelson-Morley Experiments performed in vacuum, assuming length contraction (2010)
By Joseph Levy
In agreement with Michelson-Morley experiments performed in vacuum, we show that, assuming the existence of a fundamental aether frame and of a length contraction affecting the material bodies in the direction of the Earth absolute velocity, the light signals, travelling along the arms of the interferometer arrive in phase whatever their orientation, a result which responds to an objection opposed to the non-entrained aether theory. This result constitutes a strong argument in support of length contraction and of the existence of a model of aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial bodies.
I. Introduction
It is well established today that no fringe shift occurs when Michelson and Morley experiments are performed in vacuum [1-5]. The explanation of this result, based on Lorentz and Fitzgerald assumptions, attributes the effect to a length contraction affecting the material bodies in the direction of their absolute motion. The said hypothesis is supported by the fact that it perfectly predicts that the two–way transit time of light along a rod surrounded by the vacuum, is independent of the angle separating the rod from any fixed axis [6-9].
However the objection which was done to Lorentz’s hypothesis, is that the light signals that propagate along the two arms of the interferometer have little chance to be in phase when they reach the detector, whatever the orientation of the arms. We propose in this text to check the exactness (or not) of this claim.
Given the equality of the two-way transit time of light mentioned above, it is clear that if the number of oscillations in the two arms is equal, the waves will be in phase when they reach the detector. We will verify whether, assuming length contraction in the direction of the absolute motion of the Earth frame, the number of oscillations in the round trip of a light signal along a rod is (or not) dependent on its orientation , and the implications of this fact on Michelson-Morley experiment.
Lesen Sie bitte hier weiter!
- 22. Februar 2012
- Englischsprachige Kritik der Relativitätstheorie
- Kommentare (1)
Dear Mr. Levy:
I´m very glad to know through Mr. Ekkehard Friebe´s German blog that your calculations support and strengthen the assumption of lengh contraction in absolute moving bodies as systems whose dimensions are determined by mutually opposed and compensated internal forces
I´d like to mention that such a real contraction not only was initially assumed by Lorentz as a hypothesis, but even calculated and later on stated as a matter of fact due to the contraction of moving sources and of their own force fields, as demanded by Maxwell equations.
I´m fighting for more than thirty years to draw the attention of physicists on the fact, that the experimentally observed physical relativity can only be rationally explained and well understood assuming a real lenght contraction and a real increase in the mass and period of internal energy changes (clocks) with increasing absolute velocity.
I wrote in 1979 a book entitled “Relatividad sin Enigmas” (Non enigmatic Relativity), published by Editorial Herder in Barcelona, explainig physical relativity based on the existence of absolute space and absolute motions, in clear disagreement with Einstein´s ideas.
I also published several articles on the same subject and, until now, nobody has been able to prove that I´m wrong. On the contrary, the few qualified physicists that dared to express their opinion did agree with my point of view. The rest gave evasive answers or no answers at all, in what seems to be a kind of reverencial or social fear to openly question Einstein´s theory.
But this is not your case. And so, I dare asking your opinion on the following question:
The velocity of each one of two relative moving observers can never be the same relative to a third object and, for the same reason, the velocity of a third object can never be the same relativ to each one of two observers in relative motion. Not even in the case of the third object being an electromagnetic wavefront or a foton stream. So, if in this case, both observers obtain the same absurd result, their instruments can by no means be equal or behave in the same way.
But if their respective instruments show any difference, this cannot be the consequence of their relative motion, because it is the same for both of them. Consequently their differences must be due to their different absolute velocities, whose difference is precisely their relative velocity.
So, in my opinion, the disregard of these facts led Einstein to his principal mistake and to all the subsequent omissions, contradictions and conceptual errors of his special theory of relativity.
In the annex, I enclose a paper where I prove that it is absolutely impossible for two observers in relative motion to obtain the same result in measuring the relative velocity of light to each one of them if their meter sticks have the same length and their clocks run equally fast in any place and at any time. In consequence, if they obtain the same result, either their rods or their clocks must be different or behave in a different way. There is no other dynamical possibility.
Then, following this demonstration, I also prove by means of an interferometer-like instrument, but with a coincidence clock as emitter and detector of light pulses, that to preserve relativity, it is absolutely necessary that not onlyl both clocks but also both rods as well must be different by the Lorentz factor gamma among the two observers in relative motion, in order to prevent them from knowing who is really at absolute rest in space.
I´m sorry that I only have available a German and a Spanish version of my paper, but I hope that the Google translator may render you some service. Anyhow, I´ll always remain at your disposition for eventual explanations and exchange of.ideas
Dear Mr. Levy, I would be very much obliged for your valuable opinion on the exposed question.
Yours sincerely
Herbert Sommer
http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/herbert-sommer-die-rationalisierung-der-relativitat-in-der-physik/